After 40 hours its time and a half, wake up nannies and smell the coffee!!!

[Anonymous]

What kind of cheap patent screwz their nanny for a few dollars OT. If you can't afford to pay OT then you should cut back on eberything tlse so you can pay your child's csregiver legally. You should be repirtex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What kind of cheap patent screwz their nanny for a few dollars OT. If you can't afford to pay OT then you should cut back on eberything tlse so you can pay your child's csregiver legally. You should be repirtex.

Some mid-day drinking perhaps? Go sleep it off dear.

[Anonymous]

I don't pay my nanny OT and she works 50+ hours/week. She's happy (She's been with us for several years and my children adore her), we're happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't pay my nanny OT and she works 50+ hours/week. She's happy (She's been with us for several years and my children adore her), we're happy.

Are you happy in the knowledge that you are cheating her? She may be happy, blissfully ignorant, or whatever, but you know what you're doing is wrong. Next time something awful happens to you, and you wonder "why me?", just remember that you're an awful person and that's "why".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"We needed 50 hours of child care. When we were interviewing nanny's we always stated that we needed a minimum of 40 hours (Mon. - Thu) at $15/hr and that we had a part-time sitter in who could pick up the extra 10 hrs on Friday. We simply don't have the money to pay time and a half for the extra ten hours. We gave the option though for the full-time nanny to pick up those extra 10 hours at an "average" of $15/hr for the week. Every one of the 7 nanny's we interviewed wanted the extra 10 hours even though we weren't technically paying time and a half. When we wrote up the final contract we made it legal - $750 for a maximum of 50hrs per week. "

Entirely appropriate and as you note, PP, apparently a very attractive offer to all your candidates since everyone said they preferred this arrangement to the 40 hr a week one.

+2. I have also found that most nannies want the extra hours, despite the fact that accepting those hours at the same average rate as the first 40 hours technically lowers their base rate.

[Anonymous]

This is one of the issues where this board (or one nanny) is most unreliable. Every nanny that I interviewed reported her average rate when asked about her previous salary. Not one ever reported her base rate. The nannies were far more interested in the weekly pay than the hourly rate.

I agree fully that the contract should specify actual base and OT rates but when you are negotiating its best to talk in terms of average rate. This is also what the employers share on this board. I suspect that one bad nanny want people to think that 50 hours a week @15 is much more than $750 a week..always trying to falsely jack up the rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the issues where this board (or one nanny) is most unreliable. Every nanny that I interviewed reported her average rate when asked about her previous salary. Not one ever reported her base rate. The nannies were far more interested in the weekly pay than the hourly rate.

I agree fully that the contract should specify actual base and OT rates but when you are negotiating its best to talk in terms of average rate. This is also what the employers share on this board. I suspect that one bad nanny want people to think that 50 hours a week @15 is much more than $750 a week..always trying to falsely jack up the rates.

Your low caliber bargain "nannies" seem as ignorant as you are. What a deal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the issues where this board (or one nanny) is most unreliable. Every nanny that I interviewed reported her average rate when asked about her previous salary. Not one ever reported her base rate. The nannies were far more interested in the weekly pay than the hourly rate.

I agree fully that the contract should specify actual base and OT rates but when you are negotiating its best to talk in terms of average rate. This is also what the employers share on this board. I suspect that one bad nanny want people to think that 50 hours a week @15 is much more than $750 a week..always trying to falsely jack up the rates.

Yes, this is exactly right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the issues where this board (or one nanny) is most unreliable. Every nanny that I interviewed reported her average rate when asked about her previous salary. Not one ever reported her base rate. The nannies were far more interested in the weekly pay than the hourly rate.

I agree fully that the contract should specify actual base and OT rates but when you are negotiating its best to talk in terms of average rate. This is also what the employers share on this board. I suspect that one bad nanny want people to think that 50 hours a week @15 is much more than $750 a week..always trying to falsely jack up the rates.

Yes, this is exactly right.

By your logic, why exactly would a nanny take a your 50-60 hour job over a 40, when apparently higher hours don't pay that much more, I miss dinner with my kid, have to wake up at the crack of dawn, don't get home until after its dark, etc. Why would anyone do that, if not for good money. No one is trying to falsely jack up rates. I'm telling my experience, just as you are telling yours, but I guarantee I have been on more nanny interviews than you, and personally know more nannies than the maybe 4 you interviewed. Of course however, because you are an MB your experience is the "truth" and all the nannies that disagree are liars. When I negotiate a job, I do quote a weekly rate. But that rate encompasses what I deem an appropriate hourly rate and the OT. I'm not going to work for $10/hour just because you work like a dog and want me to work like one to but would rather not pay the arm and leg the law requires. OT is meant to make you think long and hard before asking an employee to work beyond a reasonable schedule. 60 hours IS unreasonable no matter how many of you lawyers do it. I'm sure you see it reflected in your obscene paychecks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the issues where this board (or one nanny) is most unreliable. Every nanny that I interviewed reported her average rate when asked about her previous salary. Not one ever reported her base rate. The nannies were far more interested in the weekly pay than the hourly rate.

I agree fully that the contract should specify actual base and OT rates but when you are negotiating its best to talk in terms of average rate. This is also what the employers share on this board. I suspect that one bad nanny want people to think that 50 hours a week @15 is much more than $750 a week..always trying to falsely jack up the rates.

Yes, this is exactly right.

By your logic, why exactly would a nanny take a your 50-60 hour job over a 40, when apparently higher hours don't pay that much more, I miss dinner with my kid, have to wake up at the crack of dawn, don't get home until after its dark, etc. Why would anyone do that, if not for good money. No one is trying to falsely jack up rates. I'm telling my experience, just as you are telling yours, but I guarantee I have been on more nanny interviews than you, and personally know more nannies than the maybe 4 you interviewed. Of course however, because you are an MB your experience is the "truth" and all the nannies that disagree are liars. When I negotiate a job, I do quote a weekly rate. But that rate encompasses what I deem an appropriate hourly rate and the OT. I'm not going to work for $10/hour just because you work like a dog and want me to work like one to but would rather not pay the arm and leg the law requires. OT is meant to make you think long and hard before asking an employee to work beyond a reasonable schedule. 60 hours IS unreasonable no matter how many of you lawyers do it. I'm sure you see it reflected in your obscene paychecks.

Absolutely true PP! I have no idea why employers (And some idiot nannies) think that the more hours you work, the less hours you should get paid.

There's another post on DCUM's that is about a 24hr nanny not getting paid for all hours worked, or decreasing her base so it's not too expensive.

People are idiots who would take a 24hr job and make the same for a 60hr a week job!

[Anonymous]

The law does not require paying "an arm and a leg" nor does it exist to make employers "think long and hard" before requiring OT. It exists to ensure fair compensation for hours worked beyond 40 per week. It is not a value judgement on (or a punishment for) employers who require a more than 40 hour week.

You seem to think that all humans are entitled to work no more than 40 hours per week, and that anything beyond that is an infringement on basic human rights. You're seemingly missing the point that these are agreed-upon hours. Families offer a job with a certain amount of OT and a certain amount of pay taking into account the total hours to be worked. Nannies are free to accept or decline the offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The law does not require paying "an arm and a leg" nor does it exist to make employers "think long and hard" before requiring OT. It exists to ensure fair compensation for hours worked beyond 40 per week. It is not a value judgement on (or a punishment for) employers who require a more than 40 hour week.

You seem to think that all humans are entitled to work no more than 40 hours per week, and that anything beyond that is an infringement on basic human rights. You're seemingly missing the point that these are agreed-upon hours. Families offer a job with a certain amount of OT and a certain amount of pay taking into account the total hours to be worked. Nannies are free to accept or decline the offer.

That's not what I take issue with. Its the deceptiveness. Perhaps the nannies you all have encountered discuss a weekly rate because 1)they want a guaranteed income, and 2) they are unaware of the OT requirement (I was myself until this board). There have been multiple posters who flat out admit that they don't pay OT and other posters who claim to, but don't think it necessary to define the different rates. Its deceptive. Saying you pay $15/hour is a lie if you are actually paying a lower rate for the majority of those hours. Average rate is something completely made up by nanny employers on this board, or nanny employers in general, and unless someone is really in the know, they aren't going to know about your average rate bull shit. There's your rate and there's the corresponding OT rate. The nannies you spoke to weren't talking in average rates, they simply don't know they are entitled to overtime. And you all are schemers and liars.

[Anonymous]

Sorry. You are nuts. A job paying $750/wk for 50 hours is paying the same amount whether you discuss the average rate, weekly rate, base rate, or OT rate. If you accept this job, you have no basis to complain unless you are not paid the proper rate for your 51st hour.

Becoming aware of the OT requirement doesn't mean you suddenly deserve to earn more or that you are not bring paid enough. It means you now know how to describe your pay in a different way.

Mb's didn't make up the concept of averages. It's 4th grade math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. You are nuts. A job paying $750/wk for 50 hours is paying the same amount whether you discuss the average rate, weekly rate, base rate, or OT rate. If you accept this job, you have no basis to complain unless you are not paid the proper rate for your 51st hour.

Becoming aware of the OT requirement doesn't mean you suddenly deserve to earn more or that you are not bring paid enough. It means you now know how to describe your pay in a different way.

Mb's didn't make up the concept of averages. It's 4th grade math.

You did make up the term "average rate" when it comes to an hourly rate. Any other hourly job in any other (better regulated) industry would not try to pass off skirting OT as an "average rate". They discuss your hourly rate, and everyone knows OT pays time and a half. If you aren't skirting OT, why not just state the actual hourly rate, and the fact that you will pay time and a half for OT? Because then suddenly your job wouldn't be nearly as attractive. Nannies are concerned about consistency in their weekly income, yes, but we also know that there are market rates for certain jobs, and $10-$12/hour is probably below that market. If I'd charge you $18/hour for your job, I'm not going to accept $10/hour so that OT doesn't hurt you as much. I'm just not. I understand averages, and did just fine in my math classes. How'd you do in ethics?

[Anonymous]

PP, you sound like you are angry because you feel you were duped (because of your own ignorance). This isn't some dirty trick. It's a way to have a simplified conversation. You nit understanding OT does not mean you were being cheated. It just means you were ignorant.